Russell Brand.

200sols said:
Is that a crime? People bringing their moral views into this now?
Click to expand...
For several pages now, yes...

Lots of people condemning him for being interested in 16 yos. And others (Roiland, Schofield et al).

And if those girls are now claiming that he bullied them into it, that they didn't want to but felt pressured into it, then I believe it does become a crime (IANAL).
 
Hades said:

What are the allegations?​

Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation by the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches:
  1. One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
  2. A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her in the UK when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
  3. A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
  4. The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
Click to expand...

1. So if they've seen the medical records then that means the alleged victim allowed them to see them & if she's willing to that then why not the police, the ones that could actually do something with it ?

2. This one is the alleged victim that mentioned the whole mascara thing, however the allegation lines up with a line from his stand up material previous to this alleged incident, almost word for word.

What concerns me the most about the whole saga, and I'm not saying either way if any of this is true or not, is the fact that Dispatches/Times actively sought out and contacted pretty much every woman Brand had more than fleeting contact with over the alleged period.

What was said to these alleged victims by the journos to make them come forward, albeit under the guise of anonymity and due to this anonymity, how are we supposed to believe that these alleged victims actually exist?
 
So traditionally I've often been a bit surprised at celebrities having these sort of scandals because they can probably have their pick of women anyway. As in I'm like, why do they need to force themselves on anyone, why risk going out with an underage girl (Adam Johnson etc - I appreciate there's no suggestion that Brand did so)? Russell Brand during this period was famous and regarded as good looking, women would lust after him, by his own admission he was very promiscuous. So when there's a queue of attractive women at your door I don't really get why he'd allegedly assault someone as it seems like a very high risk:reward ratio.

But I then sort of came to the conclusion that if you are wired to behave a certain way, be it through wanting to exert power over people or whatever, then I guess those urges still control your character. You feel you are taking what you deserve and you don't like the hit to the ego of rejection, perhaps magnified if you are used to getting your own way. As others have mentioned, he comes across as a bit of a narcissist.

When the story broke, rightly or wrongly I wasn't that surprised. I can picture him this way, right down the text messages afterwards saying sorry etc.
 
FoxEye said:
I just worded it badly. I know several have brought claims in recent years for historical stuff. But at the time, it was normalised.

e: But the point is, were all those girls flinging themselves at their 70s rock icons entirely ignorant of what they were doing? The 16 and 17 year olds (yes there were younger girls than that).
Click to expand...
No, of course not, but flinging yourself at someone does not equate to unlimited consent and it's clear that some of the behaviour they were then subjected to was sexually, physically and emotionally abusive and the abusers were then protected by the industry. It's probably no different to Brand, I've no doubt plenty of women were going after him but that doesn't mean all of what he did was consensual.
 
FoxEye said:
He's also being accused of "grooming" a 16-yo.

nypost.com

Russell Brand, then 31, was ‘instantly aroused’ when he learned 16-year-old he’s accused of sexually assaulting was a virgin: report

When the teen first told the then-31-year-old Brand she was a virgin, he became “instantly aroused” and went on to become “preoccupied” with her innocence, she said.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Puritans being puritans, I see it creeping back into society. Either something is legal or not. What about 18, 21, 25, 30? Heard some ridiculous story the other day about some celebrity (maybe al Pacino?) Getting stuck because he was "exploiting a woman" who was in her 30s?

Abuse, coercision etc are all clearly wrong but people conflate that with age a lot of the time. British people (and Americans even more so) seem to be obsessed whereas most Europeans just get on with life. Sex isn't the be all and end all of life.

P s for the record Russell brand is still a grade a runt.
 
Resident said:
What was said to these alleged victims by the journos to make them come forward, albeit under the guise of anonymity and due to this anonymity, how are we supposed to believe that these alleged victims actually exist?
Click to expand...
? Maison greenwood etc. accusers all have anonymity - nothing inconsistent happening here, most of weinstein victims anon too, I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom